The appellant in A.S. 89/08 of the Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara, whose I.A.2423/08 seeking an order of temporary injunction was dismissed by the court below, has come up in appeal.
2. Heard Sri.R. Gopan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. L.Mohanan, learned counsel for the respondent. The main grievance expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the court below has made certain observations regarding the merits of the case in the impugned order which was quite unwarranted. On hearing either side it has come out that the FAO itself can be disposed of by directing the lower appellate court to dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible, and quite untrammeled by any of the observations made by the FAO 269 of 2010 -: 2 :-
court below in the impugned order.
3. As the appellant before the court below is no more, necessary application has to be filed before the court below by the additional appellants herein who are impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 6, for getting themselves impleaded before the lower appellate court.
4. At the time of admission, this court has granted an interim order of injunction, which will continue till the disposal of the appeal.
In the result, this FAO is disposed of with a direction to the court below to dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible, quite untrammeled by any of the observations made by the court below in the impugned order. The interim order of temporary injunction granted by this Court shall continue, till the disposal of the appeal. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE ul/-
[True copy] P.S. to Judge